7D v. 5D II in Low Light

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>I've shot tens of thousands of frames on the 5d2, 7D, 1ds, 1ds2, D700, k20D, etc, etc. I know full well what the differences are, and how they appear on print.</em></p>

<p>It's amazing how often he forgets this.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Dave Collett - it would really help to know what you're going to shoot and what your final display size will be. If you're making large prints from ISO 6400 shots, by all means, go for the 5d2. If you're making 8x10's and 11x14's and shooting just as often at ISO 1600 and 3200, the 5D2 is not likely worth the extra cost to you. If your subject is moving, then the 7D's AF will trump the 5D2's noise regardless of ISO/display size since you can't do anything when the shot is out of focus.</p>

<p>And again, a fast prime can be a better solution than a more expensive sensor.</p>

<p>So what is the context of the question?</p>

[photo11]

<p>Consider the Canon 60D......<a href="http://www.adorama.com/ICA60DR.html">http://www.adorama.com/ICA60DR.html</a>.....</p>

[travismcgee]

<p>Thanks for asking, Dan. I should have mentioned that before.</p>

<p>I travel for a living and I carry a Lowepro backpack will all my gear; a 40D, a 17-55/f2.8, a 70-200/f4, a 1.4 tele-extender, a 580 EX II, chargers, and filters. That's about all I can carry, so a bunch of fast primes just won't work for me.</p>

<p>I shoot mostly travel (obviously) and landscapes. Very few portraits and no studio work. Right now my images live on my computer, but my ultimate goal is to find the time and money to shoot high-quality landscapes from a tripod and print them at 17 x 13 or thereabouts and hang them on the wall or in a gallery on Waikiki or in Telluride or someplace. (Hey, if you're gonna dream, dream big!) Hence the desire for the 5DII. Of course, I may never have the time or the talent, so the 7D is appealing now. I find that I often want to shoot at ISO 800 or 1600 or 3200 or higher and the 40D is pretty marginal. And having a good IS lens option for a walk-around lens for the 7D is also very appealing. I had a 24-105 for awhile and didn't like it (too soft), so that closes the door on IS in that focal range on the 5DII.</p>

<p> </p>

[dcstep]

<p>Interesting Dave. As I said before, I own both the 5D2 and 7D. When I shoot travel shots and scenics I always grab the 5D2. I've been shooting at the highest quality that I can for the last three years, not knowing how I'd use the images. In the last year I finally started assembling large vanity books and printing a few images, using images that started as internet-only. Also, using AppleTV to view the images on an HDTV, even though the pixels are limited to 1080, I can tell the difference easily, between my 5D2 images and my older, smaller G9 images.</p>

<p>Right now, if you can't afford the 5D2, I'd suggest getting a high quality tripod and remote release and start shooting scenics at smaller apertures and low ISOs to get the best quality possible out of your 40D. You'll not regret waiting and saving for the 5D2. I occasionally use my 7D for scenics, but I much prefer my 5D2. It's also great for long, night exposures.</p>

<p>I took the following with the 5D MkII on my Induro C414 tripod, remote release, mirror locked up, ISO 200, f/16 and 1/320 sec. (it was windy):<br>

<a title="Twisted cedar, snow and canyon by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6041/6321115100_e426e879ec_b.jpg" alt="Twisted cedar, snow and canyon" width="1024" height="683" /></a></p>

[travismcgee]

<p>Great shot. I wondered why you used ISO 200 until you said it was windy. </p>

<p>Actually, I have been doing some of that already. I have a nice (read: expensive) Gitzo tripod that I sometimes take with me and have available at home. I normally just stroll around with the pack on my back and the camera around my neck however. You never know when you're going to see a Bigfoot or a UFO.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Mistake / Correction - (just for the record):<br>

Up above I wrote - <em>"in either case of the 5DMkII: you CANNOT get IS across that wide and normal range of Focal Lengths and loosing IS might be more relevant to your Low Light work, than gaining the extra IQ at High ISO."</em><br>

I meant: "<strong><em>at F/2.8</em></strong> you can't get IS across the wide and normal FL".</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Since I do own both here are some crops (i have posted them before) and they are of ice hockey shorts. You can see the 5DII advantage over the 7D - although the 7D is the body I use most for ice hockey due to its much faster fps and AF system (I also use a 1DIIN).<br>

On the subject of extra detail I find that my 7D actually delivers slightly less detail than the 5DII in most circusmstances. I feel this is due to the high pixel density on the sensor being a bit much for the lenses. I have mentioned this before but I recently noticed that Photozone has observed the same thing http://www.photozone.de/dslr_reviews/478_canon_eos_7d?start=8<br>

As I said in my earlier post both are good bodies and both will make most photographers happy. Others seem to see the same image quality from the 5DII and the 7D but despite thousands of images from both I find the 5DII IQ is higher (even at low ISO). This is not a big issue and unless you are printing large images or pixel peeping will not be an issue. I tend to find that many people who claim the 7D matches the 5DII only own the 7D and thus are trying to justify their purchase. I wonder why they feel the need to do this as the 5DII is a more expensive camera and is inferior in terms of AF and fps.<br>

Here is the first crop </p>

<div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>5DII at ISo 3200 - both shots taken in the same arena and both represent the same percentage of the full image.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Sorry here is the 5DII</p><div></div>

[dcstep]

<p>I agree that the 5D MkII has better high-ISO performance than the 7D, but on the issue of detail I think that the 7D is superior when you're cropping the image, due to pixel-pitch. This character makes the 7D a go-to camera for nature photographers that want detail.<br>

7D at ISO 1600, with tons of detail:<br>

<a title="Beautiful white-tail doe munching on grasses by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6171/6168248590_9defe05d15_b.jpg" alt="Beautiful white-tail doe munching on grasses" width="1024" height="1023" /></a></p>

[travismcgee]

<p>We're those hockey crops from the same lens?</p>

 

[philip_wilson]

<p>Yes Same arena and same lens - 70-200 F2.8 L non IS. Both were 1/320 and F2.8 at ISO 3200. This is actually the big issue I have with the 7D for hockey - many arenas are quite dark so you have the 7D pushed to it's limits. If it had the same high ISO performance as the 5DII then it would be great - maybe the 1Dx is the way to go. By the way I find my old 1DIIN performs about the same as the 7D at high ISO - lower resolution but less noise so in post you get the same result when you sacrifice some of the 7D resolution for noise reduction.<br>

In terms of detail and cropping there was a Scott Ferris post about a year ago that showed the benefits of the APS crop. Interestingly the difference between cropped full frame and APS-C was less than I would have expected</p>

[dcstep]

<p>The 7D has less dynamic range than the 5D MkII, so you need to use a higher ISO on the 7D than you might for the 5D MkII in the same situation. For instance, your 7D hockey image looks underexposed. You would have gotten a better exposure if you'd shot the 7D at ISO 6400 and used +1EV.</p>

<p>Action hockey shots are a poor way to compare noise and detail. Taking pictures of a sign on the boards would be a much better test and exposing both cameras properly (Expose Right, to the right of the histogram) would yield a more meaningful result.</p>

<p>For uncropped images, the 5D MkII is the champ in both noise and detail. For cropped images it's superior in noise (dynamic range). If the subject is so small that you'll crop the 7D, then the 7D will yield the most detail, but exposure will be more critical because of potential noise.</p>

<p>For our OP, Dave, and the uses he's described, I'd suggest the 5D MkII, but he will need a new L-series or equivalent wide-angle zoom.</p>

<p>The 5D MkII and the 7D have very similar pixel-pitch densities, so it's not surprising that they're close in terms of detail. For setting up on a tripod, using a remote release and mirror lock up to shot scenics, then making a large print, the 5D MkII is the best camera that Canon makes at the moment, bar none. That will soon change, but it'll always be a great camera.</p>

[dan_south]

They're both great cameras. I don't think you're 'settling' for anything if you buy a 7D. In a true double blind test I doubt

that I could spot the difference reliably between properly exposed images at anything less than 100 percent. Plus the 7D

has some nice extras like the faster frame rate, on demand grid lines, and more video and autofocus options.

 

Given that the OP travels frequently and has stated that he can't carry more gear than he already does, I don't think a new tripod is the answer to his dilemma.

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00ZlXV"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5331729">David Stephens</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Dec 21, 2011; 09:54 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The 7D has less dynamic range than the 5D MkII</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a bit of a myth David. The following are numbers for the 5D2 vs the 7D, 5D2 on the left, 7D on the right, in stops EV<br>

iso 100 8.4 8.3<br>

iso 200 8.4 8.3<br>

iso 400 8.4 8.2<br>

iso 800 8.4 8.3<br>

iso 1600 8.4 8.2<br>

iso 3200 8.6 7.8<br>

iso 6400 6.8 6.9<br>

iso 12800 6.8 6.5</p>

<p>So, it really depends upon the iso used. At 6400, the 7D is better. The differences here in most cases is between 0.1 and 0.2 EV....in other words, you'll never notice any difference in real life situations. For all practical purporses, the two are equal.</p>

 

 

[dcstep]

<p>Well, another related problem is the quality of the noise the 7D produces vs. the 5D2. For some reason that I don't comprehend, my 7D will produce a very mosaiced noise with the slightest under exposure. My 5D2's noise maintains detail and mainly just adds chroma. For that reason, I find myself picking up the 5D2 when I want to shoot night street scenes. Still, I have no problems pushing the 7D to ISO 6400 when circumstances justify, as below (500mm handheld at 1/30th sec accounts for some softness, along with the noise):<br>

<a title="7 x 7 white-tail buck after sundown by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6238/6333543814_ddbdb07341_b.jpg" alt="7 x 7 white-tail buck after sundown" width="1024" height="1024" /></a></p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>What are you using to process the raw files? Do you have an example of the mosaic type noise?</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>David - the 7D shot is not underexposed overall (it is certainly within 1/2 of a stop) when you see the whole image, but the crop clearly looks underexposed. Looking at the histograms both show the usual double peak histogram with the information at both ends of the range. I (like you) find the 7D much more sensitive to exposure errors than the 5DII. An underexposed image (even RAW) on the 7D is much noisier than the same exposure error on the 5DII - especially at higher ISO. As the crop suggests the 7D struggles more when you have the exposure bunched at the two ends of the histogram. The DXO Mark test suggest that the 5DII sensor has about 1ev more dynamic range than the 7D from ISO 800 which may be part of the issue.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Phillip, that makes sense that the overall exposure is good, but we're looking at an underexposed section. That is part of the potential problem with using action shots to compare noise and detail.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<blockquote>

<p>David Stephens "but on the issue of detail I think that the 7D is superior when you're cropping the image, due to pixel-pitch"</p>

 

 

<p> Philip Wilson "In terms of detail and cropping there was a Scott Ferris post about a year ago that showed the benefits of the APS crop. Interestingly the difference between cropped full frame and APS-C was less than I would have expected"</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

 

<p>There is no doubt if you don't have the necessary focal length and are shooting to crop, the 7D can, potentially, offer a little more resolution, though it is surprising how little extra even in totally optimal conditions. Real world shooting will rarely reflect even these small differences.</p>

<p>However for many situations the 7D will vastly out perform the 5D MkII, for instance frame rate and auto focus flexibility. But for those thinking they needed to buy the two to get the perfect combination of functionality I would suggest that for similar money you could get a secondhand 1Ds MkIII, just so long as video truly was of no interest :-)</p>

 

<div></div>

[dcstep]

<p ><a name="00Zlj2"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=528518">Dave Luttmann</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Dec 21, 2011; 11:00 p.m. asked:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What are you using to process the raw files? Do you have an example of the mosaic type noise?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good question. Let me dig around, but I generally delete those. If I can't find one in the archives, I'll try to replicate the condition in the morning. It's nice and snowy now, so it'll be easy to underexpose something in the snow tomorrow. We'll see...</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>I bought my 5D MkII first and then developed an interest in bird and nature photography, which is when I added the 7D to the arsenal. I carry both cameras 90% of the time, with the 7D carrying the 500/f4 and the 5D2 carrying the 70-200/f4, usually with the 1.4x TC attached. I usually use both on most outtings. Even though I usually end up cropping the 7D images, I love being able to see something closer to the final subject size in the viewfinder. I know that I can crop my 5D2 down to an almost equivalent image and similarly the 1Ds MkIII, but I prefer the 7D/500 combination.</p>

<p>I AM very curious about the 1D X, but then I'd need a $12,000 600mm to get even close to the view that I prefer. That's a $19,000 rig. Yes, it'll have stupendous high-ISO performance, but only marginally better fps. I'm really curious about the new AF system, which might be a giant step forward.</p>

<p>The argument that differences are minor seems silly to me. A difference is a difference. I think that our OP will prefer a 5D2 for his stated purposes, even if the differences are small, they're real. Those of us that take thousands of pix per month routinely see the difference in "real world" IQ.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Thanks David. I'm curous as to what the pattern looks like. I don't get it in Lightroom...but I know I've had odd patterning appear when using DPP. </p>

[travismcgee]

<p>Thanks for all the info, guys. I just pulled the trigger and ordered a 7D from B&H. I'm sure the 5DII is a better camera, but the 7D was $1300 and the 5DII would have been $3300 for the body and a new lens. I just finished paying for my girlfriend's daughter's undergrad and Master's degrees, so I needed to save a few bucks. Besides, the 7D will be a quantum leap beyond my 40D. Thanks again and Happy Holidays!</p>